DOCSLIB.ORG

Tule River Basin 2018 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tule River Basin 2018 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Table of Contents Draft June 2018 Tule River Basin 2018 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Table of Contents Section A – Introduction A-1 A.1 Purpose of the IRWM Plan A-1 A.2 IRWM Plan Benefits A-1 A.3 2016 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines A-2 A.3.1 Meeting the 2016 IRWM Plan Guideline Requirements A-3 A.3.2 Addressing Comments from 2015 IRWMP Submission A-7 A.4 Point of Contact A-9 Section B – Governance, Stakeholder Involvement, and Outreach B-1 B.1 Introduction B-1 B.1.1 State IRWM Guidelines: Governance and Stakeholder Involvement Standards B-1 B.1.2 IRWM Program Participants B-1 B.2. IRWM Organizational Structure B-2 B.2.1 Governance Structure B-2 B.2.2 Stakeholders Advisory Group B-4 B.2.3 Memorandum of Understanding B-4 B.2.4 Notice of Intent to Prepare the IRWM Plan B-4 B.2.5 Notice of Intent to Adopt the IRWM Plan B-5 B.3 Long Term Implementation of the IRWM Plan B-5 B.3.1 Governance B-5 B.3.2 Stakeholder Advisory Group B-5 B.3.3 Actions of the RWM Group Governing Board B-6 B.3.4 Meetings B-6 B.3.5 Updating or Amending the IRWM Plan B-6 B.3.6 Outreach to DACs and Tribal Communities B-8 C - Region Description C-1 C.1 Introduction C-1 C.2 Tule River Basin Relevance as an IRWM Planning Area C-1 C.3 Water Resources C-3 C.3.1 Tule Subbasin C-3 C.3.2 Tule River Watershed C-4 C.3.3 Ancillary Watersheds C-4 C.4 Biological Resources C-4 C.4.1 Aquatic Sensitive Species C-4 C.4.2 Freshwater Habitats C-5 C.4.3 Areas of Special Biological Significance C-5 C.5 Geologic Resources C-5 C.5.1 Basement Complex C-6 C.5.2 Marine Rocks C-6 C.5.3 Unconsolidated Deposits C-6 C.5.4 Lacustrine and Marsh Deposits C-7 C.5.5 Reduced Older Alluvium C-8 C.5.6 Oxidized Older Alluvium C-8 C.5.7 Younger Alluvium C-9 C.5.8 Geohydrology C-9 C.6 Existing Water Management Systems C-10 C.6.1 Major Infrastructure C-12 C.6.2 Wastewater Service Providers C-15 C.6.3 Flood Control Districts C-16 C.7 Land Use Agencies C-18 C.8 Water Quality C-19 C.8.1 Groundwater Quality C-19 C.8.2 Surface Water Quality C-20 C.8.3 Arsenic C-22 C.8.4 Nitrate C-23 C.8.5 Perchlorate C-24 C.8.6 Hexavalent Chromium C-25 C.8.7 Potential Sources of Contamination C-26 C.9 Cultural, Social, and Economic Profile C-29 C.9.1 Local Organizations and Associations C-30 C.9.2 Local Traditions and Community Events C-31 C.9.3 Demographic Information C-31 C.9.4 Projected Population Growth C-34 C.9.5 Economic Conditions and Trends C-35 C.10 Key Region Wide and Watershed Specific Issues C-36 C.10.1 Tribal Community Water Challenges C-36 Section D – Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget D-1 D.1 Introduction D-1 D.1.1 Use of IRWM Plan for Determining Adequacy of Water Supplies Under Senate Bill 610 and 221 D-1 D.2 Water Management Districts D-1 D.2.1 Lower Tule River Irrigation District D-1 D.2.2 Pixley Irrigation District D-3 D.2.3 Porterville Irrigation District D-4 D.2.4 Saucelito Irrigation District D-5 D.2.5 Tea Pot Dome Water District D-6 D.2.6 Terra Bella Irrigation District D-7 D.2.7 Porterville (2015 Urban Water Management Plan) D-9 D.2.8 Unincorporated Urban Community Service Districts D-10 D.3 Groundwater Supply: The Tule Sub Basin D-11 D.4 Regional Supply and Demand Balance D-12 D.5 Water Supplies and Demand Through 2040 D-13 D.5.1 Projected Urban Water Demand D-13 D.5.2 Projected Agricultural Water Demand D-15 D.5.3 Predicted Changes to Regional Water Supply D-15 D.5.4 Plan to Reduce Dependence on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Supply D-16 Section E – Goals and Objectives E-1 E.1 Introduction E-1 E.2 Process and Determination of IRWM Plan Goals and Objectives E-1 E.2.1 Stakeholder Input: Identifying Critical Water Issues E-2 E.2.2 Consistency with Applicable Resource Documents and Management Plans E-2 E.2.3 Regional Priorities E-6 E.3 Adopting the IRWM Goals and Objectives E-7 E.4 IRWM Goals and Objectives E-8 E.4.1 Maintain or Improve the Health of Ecosystems within the Region E-9 E.4.2 Protection of Life, Structure, Equipment and Property from Flooding E-9 E.4.3 Reduction of Contamination of Surface and Groundwater Resources E-10 E.4.4 Expand Regional Response to Climate Change through Mitigation and Adaption Strategies E-12 E.4.5 Work toward Achievement of Sustainable Balanced Surface and Groundwater Supplies E-13 E.4.6 Goals and Objectives Metrics E-15 E.5 Prioritization of IRWM Goals and Objectives E-17 Section F – Resource Management Strategies F-1 F.1 Introduction F-1 F.2 Resource Management Strategies F-1 F.2.1 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency F-2 F.2.2 Urban Water Use Efficiency F-4 F.2.3 Crop Idling for Water Transfers F-5 F.2.4 Irrigated Land Retirement F-5 F.2.5 Conveyance – Delta F-6 F.2.6 Conveyance – Regional/Local F-6 F.2.7 System Reoperation F-7 F.2.8 Water Transfers F-7 F.2.9 Flood Risk Management F-8 F.2.10 Agricultural Lands Stewardship F-8 F.2.11 Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) F-9 F.2.12 Ecosystem Restoration F-9 F.2.13 Forest Management F-10 F.2.14 Recharge Area Protection F-11 F.2.15 Sediment Management F-11 F.2.16 Outreach and Engagement F-12 F.2.17 Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage F-13 F.2.18 Desalination F-15 F.2.19 Precipitation Enhancement F-15 F.2.20 Recycled Municipal Water F-16 F.2.21 Surface Storage – CALFED F-17 F.2.22 Surface Storage – Regional/Local F-17 F.2.23 Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution F-17 F.2.24 Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation F-18 F.2.25 Land Use Planning and Management F-18 F.2.26 Matching Quality to Use F-19 F.2.27 Pollution Prevention F-19 F.2.28 Salt and Salinity Management F-19 F.2.29 Urban Runoff Management F-20 F.2.30 Water-Dependent Recreation F-20 F.2.31 Watershed Management F-20 F.2.32 Water and Culture F-21 F.3 Resource Management Strategy Review F-22 Section G – Project Solicitation, Selection, and Prioritization G-1 G.1 Introduction G-1 G.2 Phase 1: Project Solicitation and Acceptance of Abstract Forms G-2 G.3 Phase 2: Project/Program Evaluation and Scoring G-2 G.3.1 Objectives Worksheet G-3 G.3.2 Readiness to Proceed (RTP) Questionnaire G-4 G.3.3 Supplemental Scoring G-5 G.4 Phase 3: Final Evaluation, Notification, and Selection of IRWM Projects G-5 G.5 Updating the Project List G-5 G.6 Procedures for Displaying List of Approved Projects G-6 G.7 2018 Tule River Basin IRWM Project List G-6 Section H – Plan Benefits and Impacts H-1 H.1 Introduction H-1 H.2 Consideration of Goals and Objectives H-1 H.3 Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Project Benefits/Impacts Analysis H-5 H.4 Consideration of Climate Change in Benefits/Impact Analysis H-5 H.5 Consideration of DACs and Tribal Communities in Benefits/Impacts Analysis H-5 H.6 Consideration of Other Resources in Benefit/Impacts Analysis H-6 Section I – Plan Performance and Monitoring I-1 I.1 Introduction I-1 I.2 Performance Measures and Monitoring Methods I-2 I.2.1 Evaluation of Capacity to Evaluate and Implement Projects I-5 I.2.2 Project-Level Performance and Monitoring Plan I-5 Section J – Data Management J-1 J.1 Introduction J-1 J.2 Data Needs within the IRWM Region J-2 J.3 Current Data Programs and Data Collection Techniques J-2 J.3.1 Groundwater Elevations J-2 J.3.2 Stream Flow J-3 J.3.3 Precipitation, Weather, and Climate Change J-3 J.3.4 Reservoir Storage and Release Flows J-3 J.3.5 Point and Non-Point Pollution Discharge J-4 J.3.6 Groundwater Quality J-4 J.3.7 Surface Water Quality J-5 J.3.8 Land Use and Population J-5 J.3.9 Agricultural Water Demand J-5 J.3.10 Urban Water Demand J-5 J.4 Regional Data Management System J-6 J.4.1 Data Collection J-7 J.4.2 Database Maintenance J-7 J.4.3 Data Sharing J-7 J.4.4 Interface with State Database Systems J-7 J.4.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Measures J-7 Section K – Financing Strategies K-1 K.1 Introduction K-1 K.2 Program Level Funding Sources K-1 K.2.1 In-Kind Support K-1 K.2.2 Connect Stakeholder Grant Funding Opportunities to Tule River Basin IRWM K-2 K.2.3 Fee-for-Service K-2 K.2.4 State and Federal Grants K-2 K.3 Project Level Funding Sources K-2 K.3.1 Funding of Project Applications K-3 K.3.2 Projects Funding K-3 K.3.3 Grants and Loans (State and Federal) K-3 Section L – Technical Analysis L-1 L.1 Introduction L-1 L.2 Technical Information Sources and Data Used L-1 L.2.1 The Water Resources Investigation (WRI) l-1 L.2.2 USGS Water Quality Portal l-2 L.2.3 The Crop Water Use Model l-2 L.2.4 Community Climate System Model 3.0 (CCSM3) l-3 L.2.5 Groundwater Management Plan I-3 L.2.6 Water Management Plans l-3 L.2.7 Population and Demographic Information I-4 Section M – Relation to Local Water and Land Use Planning M-1 M.1 Applicable Land Use Plans M-1 M.1.1 Tulare County General Plan M-1 M.1.2 City of Porterville General Plan M-1 M.1.3 Unincorporated Community Plans M-2 M.1.4 National Forest Land Management Plan M-2 M.2 Applicable Water Management Plans M-3 M.2.1 Urban Water Management Plan M-3 M.2.2 DCTRA Groundwater Management Plan M-3 M.2.3 Local Water Shortage Contingency Plans M-3 M.2.4 Capital Improvement Plans/Master Plans M-4 M.2.5 Water Management and Monitoring Programs M-4 M.3 Local Climate Change Planning M-6 M.3.1 Tulare County Climate Action Plan M-6 M.3.2 Climate Change Adaption and Mitigation Strategies in Local Land Use Plans M-6 Section N – Planning Coordination N-1 N.1 Introduction N-1 N.2 Coordinate Water Management Activities to Avoid Conflict N-1 N.3 Pre-Project Coordination Efforts N-2 N.3.1 Outreach to Neighboring Regions N-2 N.3.2 Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities N-2 N.3.3 Outreach to Native American Tribal Communities N-2 N.4 Activity Coordination with Adjacent Regions N-3 N.4.1 Coordination with Tulare Basin JPA Development N-3
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4.3 Water Resources 4.3 Water Resources
    4.3 WATER RESOURCES 4.3 WATER RESOURCES This section describes the existing hydrological setting for the County, including a discussion of water quality, based on published and unpublished reports and data compiled by regional agencies. Agencies contacted include the United States Geological Survey, the California Department of Water Resources, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. This section also identifies impacts that may result from the project. SETTING CLIMATE The local climate is considered warm desert receiving approximately six to eight inches of rainfall per year (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986). Rainfall occurs primarily in the winter months, with lesser amounts falling in late summer and fall. Kings County would also be considered a dry climate since evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation.1 A common characteristic of dry climates, other than relatively small amounts of precipitation, is that the amount of precipitation received each year is highly variable. Generally, the lower the mean annual rainfall, the greater the year-to-year variability (Lutgens and Tarbuck, 1979). SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY The County is part of a hydrologic system referred to as the Tulare Lake Basin (Figure 4.3- 1). The management of water resources within the Tulare Lake Basin is a complex activity and is critical to the region’s agricultural operations. The County can be divided into three main hydrologic subareas: the northern alluvial fan and basin area (in the vicinity of the Kings, Kaweah, and Tule rivers and their distributaries), the Tulare Lake Zone, and the southwestern uplands (including the areas west of the California Aqueduct and Highway 5) (Figure 4.3-2).
    [Show full text]
  • From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-Creation of the Tribal Identity On
    From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-creation of the Tribal Identity on the Tule River Indian Reservation in California from Euroamerican Contact to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 By Kumiko Noguchi B.A. (University of the Sacred Heart) 2000 M.A. (Rikkyo University) 2003 Dissertation Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Native American Studies in the Office of Graduate Studies of the University of California Davis Approved Steven J. Crum Edward Valandra Jack D. Forbes Committee in Charge 2009 i UMI Number: 3385709 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3385709 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Kumiko Noguchi September, 2009 Native American Studies From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-creation of the Tribal Identity on the Tule River Indian Reservation in California from Euroamerican contact to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 Abstract The main purpose of this study is to show the path of tribal development on the Tule River Reservation from 1776 to 1936. It ends with the year of 1936 when the Tule River Reservation reorganized its tribal government pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Sequoia National Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Giant Sequoia Forest Service Sequoia National Monument National Forest August 2012 Record of Decision The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Sequoia National Forest Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Responsible Official: Randy Moore Regional Forester Pacific Southwest Region Recommending Official: Kevin B. Elliott Forest Supervisor Sequoia National Forest California Counties Include: Fresno, Tulare, Kern This document presents the decision regarding the the basis for the Giant Sequoia National Monument selection of a management plan for the Giant Sequoia Management Plan (Monument Plan), which will be National Monument (Monument) that will amend the followed for the next 10 to 15 years. The long-term 1988 Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource environmental consequences contained in the Final Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the portion of the Environmental Impact Statement are considered in national forest that is in the Monument.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4. Basin Setting
    Eastern Tule GSA Draft GSP | Section 4 Section 4. Basin Setting Table of Contents SECTION 4. BASIN SETTING ............................................................................................................................... 4-I TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................... 4-I 4.1 INTRODUCTION [23 CCR § 354.12] ........................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONCEPTUAL MODEL [23 CCR § 354.14(A)] ..................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING [23 CCR § 354.14(B)(1), (C), (D)(1)(2)(3)] ............................................................. 4-2 4.2.2 LATERAL BASIN BOUNDARY [23 CCR § 354.14 (B)(2)] .......................................................................... 4-3 4.2.3 BOTTOM OF BASIN [23 CCR § 354.14 (B)(3)] ....................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.4 SURFACE WATER FEATURES [23 CCR § 354.14 (D)(5)] ......................................................................... 4-4 4.2.4.1 Lake Success ................................................................................................................................................. 4-4 4.2.4.2 Tule River ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.4.3
    [Show full text]
  • Tulare Kern Funding Area Information
    Funding Area Information May 2020 Tulare Kern Funding Area The Tulare Kern Funding Area includes the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley and the southern portion of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. There are seven IRWM Regions in the Funding Area: Kern, Poso Creek, Southern Sierra, Tule, Kaweah, Kings, and Westside-San Joaquin. Disadvantaged Community Involvement Program The Disadvantaged Community Involvement Program in the Tulare Kern Funding Area involves the seven IRWM groups. The Funding Area relied on the IRWM regions and Self-Help Enterprises to facilitate Tribal outreach for the program. The DACI grant included a project development component, through which the Tule River Tribe received funding to develop design and engineering documents for three projects. Grantee: Tulare County Grant Award: $3,400,00 Grant Start: February 2018 Needs Assessment: In Progress Integrated Regional Water Management Regions* Southern Sierra The Southern Sierra IRWM region lies partially in the Tulare Kern Funding Area and partially in the Mountain Counties Funding Area. The group recognizes three federally recognized, and many other non-federally recognized, tribes. The Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) is governed according to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The Group includes 18 members who have signed the MOU, including Big Sandy Rancheria, and 43 interested stakeholders who participate but have no voting rights. The RWMG is supported by a Coordinating Committee and various Work Groups who provide advice and input to the RWMG. The Stakeholder Coordinator for the Group has reached out to the local Native American Tribes to encourage their participation and membership. Kings Basin The Kings Basin Water Authority is a Joint Powers Authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests
    Giant Sequoia National Monument Specialist Report Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests Signature: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________ The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14 th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Giant Sequoia National Monument Specialist Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Current Management Direction ................................................................................................................. 1 Types of Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 3 Objectives ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Salinity Impared Water Bodies and Numerical Limits
    Surface Water Bodies Listed as Impaired by Salinity or Electrical Conductivity on the 303(d) List1 Salinity Del Puerto Creek Hospital Creek Ingram Creek Kellogg Creek Knights Landing Ridge Cut Mountain House Creek Newman Wasteway Old River Pit River, South Fork Ramona Lake Salado Creek Sand Creek Spring Creek Tom Paine Slough Tule Canal Electrical Conductivity Delta Waterways (export area) Delta Waterways (northwestern portion) Delta Waterways (southern portion) Delta Waterways (western portion) Grassland Marshes Lower Kings River Mud Slough North Salt Slough San Joaquin River Temple Creek 1 List adopted by the Central Valley Water Board in June 2009. This list has not been approved by the State Water Board or U.S. EPA. Central Valley Water Bodies With Numerical Objectives for Electrical Conductivity or Total Dissolved Solids SURFACE WATERS GROUNDWATER Sacramento River Basin Tulare Lake Basin Hydrographic Units Sacramento River Westside Feather River Kings River American River Tulare Lake and Kaweah River Folsom Lake Tule River and Poso Goose Lake Kern River San Joaquin River Basin San Joaquin River Tulare Lake Basin Kings River Kaweah River Tule River Kern River Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Sacramento River San Joaquin River So. Fork Mokelumne River Old River West Canal All surface waters and groundwaters Delta-Mendota Canal designated as municipal and domestic Montezuma Slough (MUN) water supplies must meet the Chadbourne Slough numerical secondary maximum Cordelia Slough contaminant levels for salinity in Title Goodyear Slough 22 of the California Code of Intakes on Van Sickle and Chipps Regulations. Islands .
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Provenance and Dispersal of Neogene–Quaternary Strata of the Southeastern San Joaquin Basin and Its Transition Into the GEOSPHERE; V
    Research Paper THEMED ISSUE: Origin and Evolution of the Sierra Nevada and Walker Lane GEOSPHERE Sediment provenance and dispersal of Neogene–Quaternary strata of the southeastern San Joaquin Basin and its transition into the GEOSPHERE; v. 12, no. 6 southern Sierra Nevada, California doi:10.1130/GES01359.1 Jason Saleeby1, Zorka Saleeby1, Jason Robbins2, and Jan Gillespie3 13 figures; 2 tables; 2 supplemental files 1Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA 2Chevron North America Exploration and Production, McKittrick, California 93251, USA 3Department of Geological Sciences, California State University, Bakersfield, California 93311, USA CORRESPONDENCE: jason@ gps .caltech .edu CITATION: Saleeby, J., Saleeby, Z., Robbins, J., and ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Gillespie, J., 2016, Sediment provenance and dis- persal of Neogene–Quaternary strata of the south- eastern San Joaquin Basin and its transition into We have studied detrital-zircon U-Pb age spectra and conglomerate clast The Sierra Nevada and Great Valley of California are structurally coupled the southern Sierra Nevada, California: Geosphere, populations from Neogene–Quaternary siliciclastic and volcaniclastic strata and move semi-independently within the San Andreas–Walker Lane dextral v. 12, no. 6, p. 1744–1773, doi:10.1130/GES01359.1. of the southeastern San Joaquin Basin, as well as a fault-controlled Neo- transform system as a microplate (Argus and Gordon, 1991; Unruh et al., 2003). gene basin that formed across the southernmost Sierra Nevada; we call this Regional relief generation and erosion of the Sierra Nevada are linked to sub- Received 9 May 2016 Accepted 31 August 2016 basin the Walker graben.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTI8 SMITH, DIEECTOE WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 296 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART II. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained in the San Joaquin River basin from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 100-102. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN SAN JOAQUIN RIYER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the second of a series of reports on the* surf ace waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are to be published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and will bear the fol­ lowing titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacramento River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Section Q – Stormwater/Flooding Study
    Tule River Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section Q – Stormwater/Flooding Study Section Q – Stormwater/Flooding Study Q.1 Introduction Q.1.1 An Integrated Approach to Stormwater Management Stormwater management is an often-overlooked component of resource planning, however effective stormwater management can be used to meet a range of objectives. While traditional stormwater management typically occurs within a single agency on a local scale, an integrated approach to stormwater management focuses on facilitating collaboration between utility districts, land use agencies, and environmental interest groups to develop comprehensive stormwater management solutions. Q.1.2 What is Stormwater? Stormwater is defined by the US EPA as runoff that is generated form rain and snowmelt events that flow over land or impervious surfaces and does not soak into the ground. When water is not able to percolate into the ground, it is moved downhill by gravity until it reaches a common low point such as a stream, lake, or storm drain. The journey of stormwater from the point where precipitation hits the ground to the point it enters into local water bodies provides great opportunity for pollutants to be picked up and distributed into local surface water. Common pollutants found in storm sewers and creeks include motor oil, pesticides, brake dust, animal wastes, paint, and household chemicals. Because stormwater is not treated prior to being discharged, it can be a significant contributor to surface water pollution. In addition to degraded water quality, improper management of stormwater can result in increased flooding. Water that is unable to infiltrate into the soil runs off and ultimately accumulates in low lying areas where flooding occurs.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2012 to 03/31/2012 Sequoia National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2012 to 03/31/2012 Sequoia National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring Nationwide Gypsy Moth Management in the - Vegetation management In Progress: Expected:03/2012 01/2013 Noel Schneeberger United States: A Cooperative (other than forest products) DEIS NOA in Federal Register 610-557-4121 Approach 09/19/2008 [email protected]. EIS Est. FEIS NOA in Federal us Register 12/2011 Description: The USDA Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are analyzing a range of strategies for controlling gypsy moth damage to forests and trees in the United States. Web Link: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/wv/eis/ Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. Nationwide. Land Management Planning - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2011 12/2011 Larry Hayden Rule Orders DEIS NOA in Federal Register 202-205-1559 EIS 02/25/2011 [email protected] Est. FEIS NOA in Federal Register 11/2011 Description: The Department of Agriculture proposes to promulgate a new planning rule, which will set out the process for development, revision, and amendment of National Forest System land management plans. Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. Agency-wide Rule. Nationwide Aerial Application - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2011 01/2012 Glen Stein of Fire Retardant on National Orders DEIS NOA in Federal Register 208-869-5405 Forest System Lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin Volume 1 August 1, 2017
    Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin Volume 1 August 1, 2017 Tule Subbasin Lower Tule River ID GSA Pixley ID GSA Eastern Tule GSA Alpaugh GSA Delano- Earlimart Tri-County Water ID GSA Authority GSA Prepared for The Tule Subbasin MOU Group Tule Subbasin MOU Group Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Water Budget of the Tule Subbasin 1-Aug-17 Table of Contents Volume 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Tule Subbasin Area .......................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Types and Sources of Data ............................................................................................... 7 2.0 Hydrological Setting of the Tule Subbasin .......................................................................... 9 2.1 Location ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 Historical Precipitation Trends......................................................................................... 9 2.3 Historical Land Use .......................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Surface Water Features .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]